Build a swap route (unsigned)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it states the tool never signs, never moves funds, requires SERANOX_API_KEY (staked account, utility #10), and returns both unsigned transaction and fee quote. This prevents the dangerous assumption that calling it executes a trade.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and output, followed by the two most decision-relevant caveats (no signing, auth requirement). No redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core safety and output facts: unsigned transaction, fee quote, and API key requirement. It leaves the agent without a full return-field map or explicit note on optional slippage behavior, but those are inferable from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Description adds no parameter-level information; it only describes the operation. The schema already documents pair and amountIn, while side is obvious from its enum and slippageBps has default/bounds but no prose. Coverage is moderate (50%), so this is acceptable but not exemplary.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Builds a memecoin swap through the Seranox router') and the key output ('UNSIGNED transaction plus a fee quote'), making it distinct from the list/status/risk siblings. The title confirms the unsigned nature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operational context: it returns an unsigned transaction and explicitly says 'never signs and never moves funds,' directing the agent to hand `unsignedTx` to a wallet. It lacks a named alternative for execution/signing, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use-this-versus-X guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.